step by step the longest march can be won

That famous final line in Robert Redford’s 1972 film The Candidate was meant to sum up the ways that big time electioneering obliterates politicians’ purpose and vision. This is a very important moment to ask the question-understanding that the ‘we’refers not so much to the President and his party but to we, the people.Particularly we who are so rightfully relieved and, yes, elated by the outcomeof the 2012 election.

There are many ways to talk about the victory. The rightwingpolitical and cultural agenda has been repudiated by a decided majority. Thatmajority, it seems possible to imagine, is a new and stable coalition in aposition to define the political and cultural direction not only for four yearsbut well beyond. The threat of anextreme rightwing GOP victory helped mobilize a majority whose base includespeople of color, the majority of women, a huge majority of the young of allgenders and colors, organized workers and the so-called ‘creative class’(people with advanced degrees working in knowledge and culture making anddistributing). The Republican operatives based their hope of winning on the historicallylow turnout of many of these categories—for it was that low turnout that led totheir 2010 electoral victory. And mainstream media (and many liberal analysts)reinforced that expectation—stressing the alleged dispirited, disillusioned,disappointed feelings of the Obama base. And then of course all that cash,avalanching on the swing states and on the close congressional races—everyone ‘knows’that money is what counts in election combat.

Nate Silver’s calculations, dating back to thepre-convention period, indicated, however, that Obama had a high probability ofwinning—and that the Democrats had a reasonable chance to keep control in thesenate. After months of campaigning, and six billion dollars of campaignspending devoted to all manner of memes to defame and delegitimize Barack Obamaand his popular base, the results were much what Silver and others consideredprobable in June—and the overall swingtoward the Democratic party across the country was stronger than expectations.

I know it sounds really naïve, but here’s what I think—it’sactually possible for the majority of people to see how their shared interestsare at stake and to vote accordingly. African Americans constitute the most sophisticatedvoting bloc in the US—understanding that voting as a bloc can be empowering.Maybe having struggled in living memory for the right to vote—and continuing todefend that right—concentrates the mind about how to make the vote politicallymeaningful. Feminists—and that includes millions of women (and men) who don’t call themselves that—are alsoplenty savvy as voters. A similar collective electoral identity has solidifiedamong Latinos and Asian Americans—and maybe on a lot of college campuses (ifour local UCSB student body is any indication). None of these groups votesimply on ‘identity’ grounds. A good case was Linda McMahon who spent tens of millionsto get to the senate in Connecticut—the majority of women in that state votedfor her male opponent. In fact, the new majority coalition of 2012 sharedcommon ground on a wide range of issues—melding class, race, gender andsexuality in many states and many ways. For example: Here’s Tammy Baldwin, who happens to be thefirst openly gay senator now, but she ran and won as a staunch supporter of workers’rights, drawing on the Wisconsin progressive tradition to help define herpopulism and at the same time proud of her sexuality. Just one of many situations where theprogressive majority framework was validated.

So I’m claiming that this 2012 election was a ‘criticalelection’—a term political scientists use to refer to (as Wikipedia definesit): “the coming to power for several decades of a newcoalition, replacing an old dominant coalition of the other party as in 1896when the GOP (Republicans) became dominant, or 1932 when the Democrats becamedominant. More specifically, it refers to American national elections in whichthere are sharp changes in issues, party leaders, the regional and demographicbases of power of the two parties, and structure or rules of the politicalsystem (such as voter eligibility or financing), resulting in a new politicalpower structure that lasts for decades.”

We can’t, of course, know right at the start, whether this is what has just happened—whether the coalition can be sustained. Butthere’s another political science factoid that reinforces the potential stayingpower of the Democratic Party coalition—it seems that parties that preside overa post-recession recovery typically stay in power for decades after. Barring unexpected derailment, a decided recovery is likely in the coming Obama years.

My point about stressing the transformative electoral situation we seem to have entered is not, of course, that this in itself brings the change that the progressive majorityneeds and wants. What it does is create new opportunitiesfor movements for change to gain leverage. We can see some signs of this just afew days after the results came in. Already, voices in the GOP, responding tothe Latino turnout against them, are advocating pathways to citizenship andrelated immigration solutions. ThePresident, capitalizing on the vote, makes it clear that taxing the rich isessential to his agenda and some Republicans have started to murmur that maybethey better live with that. Democrats in congress are asserting theirdetermination not to bargain away social security and Medicare benefits—this inthe face of the endless whine of the deficit hawks about ‘entitlement reform’. Sothe signals sent by the progressive majority votes are being picked up eveninside the beltway. But even these modest gains for equity and justice won’t besecured without continuing grassroots pressure.

I think the potential emergence of a new progressive majority creates the need for and the promise of a far more embracing vision, program and strategy than immediate steps toprotect the safety net or improve federal revenue. In fact, there are severalversions of the progressive agenda which are now necessary and possible:

RESTORE MAJORITY RULE: I see the electionas a providing a mandate for fighting and winning some big battles to makedemocracy finally come to the USA. The thousands who waited hours to vote, the massive turning of backs on TV manipulation, the big turnouts of young voters (whose proportion of the electorate grew this time)—maybe these are signs that people really want their voices to be heard and their votes to count. The progressive majority will be strengthened insofar as voting is made easier (a million voters registered on line in California this year). As Piven and Clowardpresciently argued years ago, if the electorate actually represented thepopulation, we’d have a real chance for a just social order. I used to thinkthat organizing for procedural reform might not be very fruitful; right now, I’mthinking quite the reverse. We need filibuster reform in the Senate, and othermeasures, state and national, to end the minority veto power that results fromsuper-majority rules. We need to professionalize the management of elections toend the long lines and obstructive practices of local election administration.We need to implement measures like same day registration and other voter easing rules—and of course reverse voter suppression measures. The campaign against citizens united and otherfinance reform seems poised to make gains. And it would be good to open realdebate on reforming the electoral system—end the Electoral College as we knowit, raise awareness about proportional representation and other voting systemsthat allow meaningful alternative party activity.

GREEN ECONOMY: Obama in victory finallyspoke about climate change. Maybe the pain inflicted by Sandy can be afoundation for advancing the sustainability agenda. Let’s put the carbon tax onthe table. Let’s put limits on fracking and other scary carbon basedtechnologies. Let’s argue strongly and confidently that public-privatepartnership for alternative energy, climate change infra-structure,retrofitting, conservation and non-carbon fueled transportation creates jobs,builds the economy and makes the future possible. Don’t wait for the presidentto start or carry this argument—mow’s the time to really spell this out!

DEMOCRATIC FINANCE: The new fronts of the Occupymovement include: moving our money out of the big banks and into communitybased banks, various forms of debt strikes (by student loan and mortgagedebtors), the Robin Hood Tax on financial transactions, and progressive taxreform . Its terrain that doesn’t simply focus on federal legislation but onvarious kinds of grassroots action.

THE LIVING WAGE: The federal minimum wagehas lost 30% of its value in the last 30 years. Many millions of workers earnwages that put them at or below poverty level. In this election, 60% voted toincrease the minimum wage there to $10.00/hr., and similar votes occurred intwo other cities. Raising the minimum wage significantly seems like it could bean early rallying demand on Congress and a new framework for action in statesand cities. And fighting for this could be a way to dramatize the wideninginequality that is in fact the root cause of economic stagnation as well ashuman misery.

RESTORE THE BILL OF RIGHTS: There are alot of angry voices on the left, disgusted with the Obama’s defaults andfailures with respect to civil liberties. Obama’s signature on the defenseauthorization act, with its provisions for indefinite detention, was a bigsource of alienation. The implementation of ICE belies the claims about targeting‘criminals’ for deportation. The prison system is a festering scandal. AndObama’s legacy will include the legitimation of drones as weapon andsurveillance tool. California’s majorityvoted to liberalize the 3 strikes law and narrowly defeated repeal of the deathpenalty. We need a vocal human rights/civil liberties coalition thatunderstands that a great deal of grassroots education is needed if numbers of[people are to get engaged in these issues. And in the process of thateducation, the hammering out of a bill of rights platform embracing the fullrange of such issues needs to be accomplished. I wonder if there are people incongress ready to form a bill of rights caucus, ready to sponsor new legislation,hold hearings and help the consciousness raising process. These are issues thatcan bring a lot of libertarians into coalition with lefties and, from a sheerelectoral strategy perspective; they are issues that a lot of young peoplereally care about.

Five frameworks for grassroots action, for public debate—and I think fivearenas where we MUST make gains in the next years and also, now, have some hopeof doing so. They’re the things we all have been involved in, in one way or another.All of these go beyond whatever the administration’s current agenda is—but ineach case, promises have been made by the president and party leaders, andtherefore feet can be held to fires.

For each of these, making gains requires articulating both a program and astrategy for getting there Instead ofcontinuing, as we leftists often do, to wonder ‘what’s the matter with America?” we now need to believe that these domainsrepresent potential areas where amajority is already plausible

5 Comments

Comment by EK Anderson on Mon 12th Nov, 2012

Thanks Dick. This is not even remotely naive. Humans do demonstrate brilliance equal to any asshole behaviors they've had in the past. I'd like to witness a brilliant moment in American history so I'm staying on Earth until someone hammers out a bill of rights platform. Then I'll write a followup musical to 1776. Four more years. xoEllen

Comment by Paul Lauter on Mon 12th Nov, 2012

This was my comment on a Portside article; seems relevant to what Dick wrote, too:
Emily Bazelon's article on Gerrymandering and the House of Representatives is right on the money, except for one thing.
She writes, at the end, " If Democrats ever want to win back the House, they have to get their people to the polls in the off years." Yes, but that is not a one- or two-year proposition. Republican success in 2010 came from a much longer-term plan, which included the operations of organizations like ALEC (American Legislative Exchange
Council) and the concentration of large amounts of money in key state and local races.
The House is much more related to state and local politics, unlike the Senate, which is now significantly tied to national issues and personalities. Democrats or others who oppose the right-wing agenda that has produced today's House will have to develop a long-range strategy and means of supporting a progressive program that is as forceful and well-financed as ALEC has been. And they will have to contest in a much more systematic way those state and local contests that have led to the ability of Republicans to Gerrymander districts and to select candidates already committed to and knowledgeable about the right-wing agenda. It's not just that mid-term elections have national consequences; it's rather than local politics have effects far outside the towns and states in which they are contested.
Paul Lauter
Allan K. & Gwendolyn Miles
Smith Professor of Literature
Trinity College (Hartford)

Comment by Judee on Mon 12th Nov, 2012

Rationally, clearly, strongly, hopefully articulated. I wish I had your optimism. I certainly agree that the discourse once again has promise of changing, and that, for a while at least, there will be renewed energy behind these 5 goals. I don't want my jaundiced views to harsh your buzz, as they say, so I'll just leave it there.

Comment by Eileen Boris on Tue 13th Nov, 2012

Remember Dick that the majority of white women voted for the other guy! So reminding everyone it was feminists is a better way of putting the demographic rather than women ( if a political stance can be a demographic). Since white women are a declining group of women, however, we can say majority of women voted Obama, though the gap was less than with McCain. Educating for feminism is key component.

Comment by Sara Miller McCune on Tue 13th Nov, 2012

Thanks, Dick.
While I agree with much of what you recommend, I do not think that getting rid of the Electoral College will be (or should be) an immediate item on a progressive wish list. It will not be easy to pass a constitutional amendment (which I understand to be a requirement).
Sara

Leave a comment:

*Name

*Email (will not be displayed)

*What is the main street in Santa Barbara?

* = required field

About

Dick Flacks here...sociology professor emeritus at UCSB. Budget cuts mean that I can't continue my annual course on political sociology. Maybe a blog will be a space for me to continue to ruminate and pontificate. And maybe (as a veteran teacher on these matters) I can offer some ways of thinking about what's happening nationally and locally that will be useful, as we struggle to make sense of the tortured complexities of these times.
I've been a leftwing activist for more than 50 years. What we've been struggling for all these years is full democracy--to increase the opportunities for people to have real voice in the decisions that affect them. Step by step over these years we've made some gain...but it is a long march, and one that never ends. The big barrier to democracy in our society is the concentrated power of corporations. At the same time, democracy is undermined by the felt powerlessness of people in their daily lives--the persistent belief that our problems are only our own personal concern. It's a strong cultural theme--such individualism--constantlly reinforced by mass media and everyday circumstance. But the current big crisis of the economy maybe makes it more possible for more people to understand that we've got to have social reform and economic reform. So my writing here is aimed at helping us figure out what to think and act on that so that we can hope for new democratic possibilities. WE'll be talking about the local and the national.
The blog name comes from an old labor union hymn:
Step by step the longest march can be won. Many stones can form an arch...singly none. And by union what we will can be accomplished still. Drops of water turn a mill, singly none, singly none.
For 27 years I've had a weekly radio show on KCSB (91.9 fm. www.kcsb.org) It's called the Culture of Protest. It's comes from my fascination with music and social movements. I collect 'political' and 'protest' music and that's what we play each week (Thursdays 6-7 pm). So sometimes here we'll share and talk about that.
I'm worried about one thing about the blogosphere. And that's the way that some people use the blog comment space for anonymous nastiness. I'm sick of the kind of political blather that assaults the motives of others, and sees dark conspiracy behind every thing one doesn't like. This kind of stuff is helping to poison the political atmosphere. So I'm going to strive for a civil tone to whatever interaction may happen on this blogsite.